LexG.J FERNANDEZ versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
G.J. FERNANDEZ
A
I
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
FEBRUARY 1, 1990
B
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.)
Constitution of India 1950: Articles 226 and 136--Award of con-
tract by Karnataka Power Corporation to Mysore Construction Co.-
Validity of-Eligibility of party to apply for State contracts-Supply of
tender documents-Essentiality of-Comparative merits of parties- c
Not for Court to decide.
The petitioner aggrieved by the award of a contract by the respon-
dent in favour of Mysore Construction Company (M.C.C.) filed a Writ
Petition and a further Writ Appeal in the Karnataka High Court. Being
unsuccessful there he came up in appeal before this Court by way. of D
special leave.
The single judge of the High Court had taken the view that pre-
requisites for the supply of tender forms were contained in Para I of the
Notification Inviting Tender (NIT) and the details called for in Para V
could be supplied any time. The Division Bench on appeal did not
E
express any opinion regarding the requirements set out in para V but
was of the view that there was nothing unfair or arbitrary about the
award of the contract to the MCC. In appeal before this Court the plea
of the petitioner is that the Karnataka Power Corporation should not
have accepted the tender of MCC, as the MCC did not fulfil certain
~
preliminary requirements contained in Para I and V of tbe NIT which
F
according to him have to be fulfilled before the forms of tender could be
supplied to any intending contractor.
Dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the Court,
HELD: Para V cannot but be read with para I. The supply of G
some of the documents referred to in para V is indispensable to assess
whether the applicant fulfills the prequalifying requirements set out in
'("
para I. It will be too extreme to hold that the omission to supply every
small detail referred to in para V would affect the eligibility under para
I and disqualify the tenderer. [240E-FJ
H
~
229
A
B
c
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 1 S.C.R.
If a party has been consistently and bona fide interpreting the
standards prescribed by it in a particular manner, this Court should
not interfere thoueh it may he inclined to read or construe the condi-
tions differently. [241E]
Assuming for purposes of argument that there has been a slight
deviation from the terms of the NIT, it has not deprived the appellant of
its right to be considered for the contract. On the other hand its tender
has received due and full consideration. If, save for the delay in filing
one of the relevant documents, MCC is also found to he qualified
to tender for the contract, no injustice can be said to have been
done to the appellant by the consideration of its tender side by side
with that of the MCC and in the KPC going in for a choice of the
better on the merits. [242E-G l
The comparatil'e merits of the appellant vis-a-vis MCC are, how-
ever, a matter for the KPC to decide and not for the Courts.[243C-DI
D
Ram Gajadher Nishad v. State of U.P., (C.A. 1819/89); Ramana
E
F
Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India &
Ors., [ 1979] (3) SCR 1014, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1027
of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1989 of the Karna-
taka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 1989.
K. Parasaran, C.S. Vaidyanatha, S.R. Bhat, S.R. Setia, K.V.
Mohan and Mrs. 'Sunitba B. Singh for the Petitioner. -
K.N. Bhatt, Rajinder Sachhar, Vineet Kumar, B .. Mohan and
K.G. Raghvan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
RANGANATHAN, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award
of a contract by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (K.P.C.), an
instrumentality of the State u~· Karnataka, in favour of the Mysore
\
Construction Co. (M.C.C. ). His writ petition and a further writ appeal
·,
in the Karnataka High Court having been unsuccessful, he has prefer-
red this Special Leave Petition from the judgment of the High Court in
H
the writ appeal. We have heard counsel for both sides at length. We
A
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 1 S.C.R.
block, precast concrete block, ..... etc., and period of comple-
tion scheduled/envisaged, equipments and their deployment i.e.,
man months etc.
The N .I. T. specified January 17, 1989, as the last date for receipt
of application forms for issue of blank tender books. The issue of
B
blank tender books was to be between 23rd January to 27th JanExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.